Conquer Club

It's no secret the foundry is kind of a messy, even scary place to visit. We are crazy serious people and very argumentative which may turn many of you off on the idea of stopping by to see what's going on.

I'm going to be conducting a series of questions out here in general to try to figure out what people who don't typically visit the map foundry actually want to see. There has been a lot of bitching about the recent maps and it's starting to look like we are not meeting the demand correctly, at all.

So, without anymore of my ridiculous babbling.

How Many Territories Do You Like To See?

Any and all.

50-100

I think this should be put in the foundry, since more people visit that and it is about maps. But, what can I do?

I like bigger maps, because they take much less luck and much more skill (although I don't have either) .

World 2.1 > Doodle Earth

i like doodle earth kind of size

I like the middle ground. I don't like tiny maps, and I don't like giant maps. I'd much rather play on Doodle Earth than 2.1 though. 2.1 is just ick.

coleman, I thought the recent maps were awesome, I don't know what others were thinking.
I tend to like larger just because I almost always get bad luck on the smaller ones. I personally like 2.1 just because of its size, there seems to be less luck involved. (I am not saying I am any good though)

40-60

hugh scale maps i feel are the future. thats not to say that other maps are any less important. However i also feel that there is more than enought "average" sized map. That why id like to see more of the very large and the very small.

THe main problem at the moment faced with the foundry is the size restritions were allowed. We have a couple of maps at hte moment with 100+ terrs that are fitting within the size guidlines but with they where allowed more room then there would more and better large scale maps coming through.

anything over 60 sounds good to me. but i'd really like to see maps with 150-300 terits.

personally I like the variety. Doodle, Benelux or Indochina for a quick game and Pearl Harbor, Rail, 2.1 for long games with everything in between.

I don't read the forums a lot but I like the new maps. There's a balance between simple (Italy) and complex (Actium) which I think is what makes different maps great.

Well I think I know why small has 0 votes.

"Hmm, small, what maps do we have that are in that range right now? Circus Maximus and Indochina... Ewww..."

I like average size maps...And probably one of the few who hate large maps


I never played 2.1, it scares me looking at it. I prefer the classic styles, average maps.


..I would say more about gameplay, but this poll is about territs

freezie wrote:I like average size maps...And probably one of the few who hate large maps


I never played 2.1, it scares me looking at it. I prefer the classic styles, average maps.


..I would say more about gameplay, but this poll is about territs

Once I was brave enough to try a 2.1, with no cards. After a few minutes it sunk in what I had done, and I was near tears.

2.1 is one of my all time favourites its size makes it difficult to gain a large advantage at the start of a game and it also requires much more strategy that a regular sized map.

But to be honest im not bothered by size. but i would really like to see more 100+ terr maps

there are already lots of regular sized maps, what most people seem to like, but it would be nice to see some 100+ maps, 2.1 gets old after a while

small because it isn't a "all my armies are stacked up in 1 territory" or a "it's so big i don't know where to start.

I think small is just too much luck, which I don't have

frogger4 wrote:I think small is just too much luck, which I don't have

I don't get how bigger = less luck. More armies vs more armies is just as luck dependent as less armies vs less armies. In fact, with the big bonus you receive from the start with all the territories, (I assume) it is easier to do what you want early. As long as nobody is deploying near you to try and stop you, you pretty much have free reign of what you want to do. Therefor it pretty much comes down to A) who has more of the bonus they are going after from the start and B) who gets crap dice and can't expand quite as fast as another.

I may be totally wrong, as I've played maybe one game on 2.1 and I honestly just played that game in sort of a haze. I didn't want to think about it much or I'd break out in tears again.

6, definitely 6.

Visaoni wrote:

frogger4 wrote:I think small is just too much luck, which I don't have

I don't get how bigger = less luck.

let's take doodle earth and world 2.1 in a 1v1 sequential flat rate chained

on doodle earth you'll start with 6 terits (18 troops) and a bonus of 3 troops.

you deploy 3 and attack 6v3 (it's flat rate so you need a card) you get crappy dice and lose 2 throws in a row. it ends 2v3. it's no point attacking something else so you end turn.
the other guy deploys his 3 and attacks your 2. he wins the first throw. and ends turn.
summary after round 1 you have 15 troops in 5 terits and no cards and the other guy has 21 troops 7 terits and 1 card.
so just because of 2 crappy throws your opponent has 33% more troops than you. not to mention if he manages to get a mixed set form the first 3 rounds you are dead. i played doodle earth 1v1 i was in a game where i had shitty dice. after 3 rounds the other guy had ~13 troops and i had 3. but i got a mixed set from my first 3 cards. i killed him despite the fact i had 4 times less armies than him. all luck no skill



now here's another story. on world 2.1 you start with 37 terits (111 troops) and a bonus of 12 troops. you deploy your 12 troops and no matter how crappy your dice are you'll still manage to get a card 99% of the time. and the time you won't get a card (very rarely you lose 12v3) you'll still have 111 troops left so you won't feel like an elimination is coming.

the point is in big maps a few bad throws don't matter while in small maps 1 (ONE) crap throw can mean defeat.

and i do mean 1 crappy throw.
i was in a game on doodle earth where a guy took africa. he had 2 on the border i could attack. i also had 2. deployed 3 on my 1 and attacked 4v2. he hit 2 bigger dice and it ended 2v2. he kept his bonus then creamed me.
if i had taken his 2 with my 4 it would have been my game but i didn't.

I like the middle ground where the game isn't decided by one dice roll but it's also not too big so you don't know what to do.

I don't care about the territory count - I'd just rather there were less maps being approved in general.

Elwar wrote:I don't care about the territory count - I'd just rather there were less maps being approved in general.

Care to elaborate?